A jury has failed to agree verdicts in a rape trial involving three young men who say they had consensual sex with a teenage girl in car six years ago.
It was the State's case that the then 17-year-old girl was raped in turn by each of the accused in a car at a hotel car park after going for a drive with them. The three defendants, who were aged 17 and 18, denied any wrongdoing.
After a three-week trial at the Central Criminal Court and having deliberated for just over nine hours, the jury of six men and six women told Justice Melanie Greally on Wednesday that it could not come to a verdict.
Justice Greally had instructed the jury on Tuesday afternoon that she could accept a majority verdict on which 10 or more jurors agreed.
Shortly after 2pm on Wednesday she told jurors that it was open to them to return verdicts of disagreed if they had each come to a final position on the charges and 10 or more of them were not in agreement.
About 15 minutes later the jury returned to the courtroom and returned verdicts of disagreed on all eight counts.
The first defendant (22) had pleaded not guilty to rape and sexual assault, a second defendant (23) had pleaded not guilty to rape, oral rape and two counts of sexual assault, and a third defendant (23) had pleaded not guilty to rape and oral rape.
The offences are alleged to have occurred on December 20th, 2017, at a hotel car park in the Leinster area when two of defendants were 17, the third defendant had just turned 18, and the complainant was 17.
Justice Greally adjourned the case for mention to April 28th.
Getting into a car with four lads is not consent to sex
Advertisement
In her closing speech, prosecuting counsel Alice Fawsitt SC said that complainant's evidence was that she said no to the defendants' requests for sex and that they did not listen to her.
Ms Fawsitt suggested the defendants thought the woman “was consenting to sex” once she got into the car, but the complainant believed they were going for a drive.
“Getting into a car with four lads is not consent to sex with one, two or three of them,” she said.
In their closing addresses, defence counsel suggested there were inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence which affected her credibility as a witness.
In his closing speech, Michael O'Higgins SC, defending the first defendant, said his client's evidence was not “if you don't scream rape, there's consent,” but “no means no”.
He told the jury there is a “particular set of circumstances” which “we say commences in a consensual way, unfolds in a particular way, and it’s not rape”.
Garnet Orange SC, defending the second defendant, submitted that the prosecution's case against his client had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He asked if it is plausible that the woman was raped in succession by three men and did not try to get away.
Mr Orange asked the jury to imagine themselves as “a 17-year-old girl who has possibly made a catastrophically bad decision”. He suggested there is an “easy solution which wipes the slate clean”.
Mr Nicholas SC, defending the third defendant, said it would be “unfair to distil” his client's evidence to “if she doesn’t scream, it’s not rape”. He suggested the woman did not take opportunities to be rescued because there was “nothing to be rescued from”.
Mr Nicholas suggested the woman “regretted” the events of that night, “but it wasn’t rape”.
Under the 1981 Rape Act, anyone charged with a rape offence is entitled to anonymity unless and until they are convicted. The complainant remains, at all times, entitled to anonymity unless they choose to waive this entitlement.
The trial had run at the Central Criminal Court since March.
